Avatar
Please consider registering
guest
sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register
Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search
Forum Scope


Match



Forum Options



Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
sp_TopicIcon
Are most truly sexy women unfaithful?
November 13, 2005
5:27 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests
101sp_Permalink sp_Print

Young & Restless

You said:

"Wh? umm...wh..what exactly are your intentions sir?"

I believe that my intentions are to try to raise people's awareness of the degree to which their minds have been conditioned. Their freedom to choose what they believe is thence enhanced once this realization is attained. Otherwise it is more of the same old, same old 'autopilot' controlling their lives.

You quoted Paul as saying:

"“I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thessalonians 5:23). Note his positioning of the term ‘whole’ and how it requires a summing up of all the ladder terms."

This statement alone appears to me to exemplify the illogical nature of biblical writings.

In the light of your belief in the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and altrustic, monethiestic, yet trinitarian God, can you not see the illogical nature of - and contradictions in - this quote?

Here you have an leader of one faction of the early Christian church, beseeching God that a part of Him, yet separated from Him, ("your whole spirit and soul and body")will remain "blameless".

The inference is clear here that Paul believed that there is a part of God that has the potential to both err and to be "blamed" by that God.

Some people believe that Satan is the evil face of God. If God is only conditionally loving as the bible seems to regularly imply then this dualistic belief would then make your quote seem rational in some small degree.

A further implication of Paul's quote is that Paul's God, who either causes or permits all things, blames separate selves (yet not separate at all) - his own creations - for His own design inadequacies.

This is so naive and logically flawed. It is an exemplar of the childlike and dualistic thinking of a very primitive tribal people.

You further said:

"Based on the provided instances of scripture (and many more) the soul of a man houses his emotions and desires. We can also observe that the soul is of value to GOD and capable of the full scope of emotions -from love to hate."

This statement flies in the face of both modern science and human experience.

The amygdala has been clearly identified by Dr. Joseph LeDoux(1996, 2002) an eminent neuroscientist from New York Labs of NYU, as being the seat of the emotions.

The amygdala, a primitive organ that underpins the survival drives of humans and animals alike, triggers our emotional responses. Without it mice snuggle up to cats!!!

Based upon your blind faith in the veracity of a book full of primitive writings, are you saying that Dr. LeDoux is wrong?

This will do me for starters.

November 13, 2005
6:38 pm
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
102sp_Permalink sp_Print

In the light of your belief in the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and altrustic, monethiestic, yet trinitarian God, can you not see the illogical nature of - and contradictions in - this quote? Here you have an leader of one faction of the early Christian church, beseeching God that a part of Him, yet separated from Him, ("your whole spirit and soul and body")will remain "blameless". The inference is clear here that Paul believed that there is a part of God that has the potential to both err and to be "blamed" by that God.

"This statement alone appears to me to exemplify the illogical nature of biblical writings."

You're absolutely correct. That statement would exemplify illogical contradictions and warrant your bitter attack.

However, yours is not the correct implication of the scripture.

“I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thessalonians 5:23).

You see, Paul wasn't talking to GOD when he said this. He was talking to the church at Thessalonia. My quote is from The King James version of the Bible wich uses a somewhat out dated form of English. I didn't think this would be a problem for you. Based on your many post about the Bible, I always assumed you had a large knowledge base of what the Bible says and represents.

OK..

Here is a more appropriate version of that scripture for you: And may the God of peace Himself scantify you through and through; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved sound and complete and found blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

As you can see here, the implication is that man is composed of body, spirit and soul and should be found blameless.

That new understanding is probably going to change some parts your response.

November 13, 2005
6:46 pm
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
103sp_Permalink sp_Print

New question as it relates to Christianity: How can you be so passionately against something that you have such a superficial knowledge of?

November 16, 2005
5:33 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests
104sp_Permalink sp_Print

Young & Restless on the 13-Nov-05 you wrote:

"Here is a more appropriate version of that scripture for you: And may the God of peace Himself scantify you through and through; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved sound and complete and found blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Now we have another interpretation that is bending the meaning to suit the author's intent and beliefs. This is my point. This is one of the reasons that Christianity has so many sects, each claiming to be the correct one. It all gets down to either having blind faith in one interpretation or another or using the intellect in making a rational judgement about the many contradictions.

"... you can see here, the implication is that man is composed of body, spirit and soul and should be found blameless."

Blameless of what? Behaving on 'autopilot' as your Christian God created the potential for the ignorant to do?

"That new understanding is probably going to change some parts your response."

Not at all.

According to Christians the Christian God is all powerful, all knowing and all loving, therefore everything that happens, man's 'sinfulness' included is either caused or permitted by this God.

Now if you ever studied psychology at any depth or deeply reflected on the workings of the human mind you will realize how complex and involved is its unconscious processing. The key word here is unconscious.

I doubt any but a tiny fraction of humanity have any real insight into themselves, their underpinning drives, their motivations the source of their fears etc. Most are driven blindly by their emotions to 'sin' as you would undoubtedly call it. Those very 'autopilot' like emotions originating in the amygdala, were, according to you, designed by your God, fully knowing and foreseeing how humanity would behave as a result.

Since God is the designer, architect and constructor of all these autopilots then how can any poor ignorant Thessalonians, being on autopilot, be blamed for behaving as programmed by their God?

If you ever read anything about the life of Adolf Hitler, you would see how his childhood conditioning and subsequent youthful experiences in the WW1 trenches in France, and in the depression years set him up to behave as he did. Where was your all knowing all powerful all loving God then?

If He existed, why wouldn't your Christian God, "the God of peace Himself scantify " Adolf Hitler, as your Paul was wishing he would do for the Thessalonians?

I had pumped into me as a kid in school that your God wanted us to have free will so that we would 'freely' choose Him. Hmmmm!! A 'needy' anthropomorphic God who wants to be loved, worshipped and obeyed??? A lonely God who is prepared to leave mankind in a state of ignorance about the workings of their own neurotic minds? A God, having the three attributes of Godhood, who stands idly by as wholesale atrocities are committed daily as a direct result of this ignorance?

The predatory horrors of the world don't make any sense at all to anyone of intelligence who chooses to use that intelligence instead of ducking the issue in the interests of maintaining blind faith is a 'big daddy in the sky' in order to satisfy deep seated, primitive emotional needs.

The evolutional hope of humanity is to develop that cognitive component of the human psyche to the point wherein it can effectively control the amygdala, effectively parent, effectively deal with conflict through a total understanding of that same psyche. I don't see your God setting up any education programmes in that regard or waving any magic wands. Why not? Because the biblical god doesn't exist any more than Father Christmas does, that's why.

Christianity amongst many if not all other religions, with the possible exception of Buddhism, seeks to keep the blinkers on the cognitions in order to appease the amygdala.

Below are two old posts that I kept, one from Nikka, the second from Cici.

______________________________________

Namaste, Tez.

I am working for the goal of my own home being that imperfect reflection. Polish the mirror and see if it, perhaps, is merely a translucent frame which might allow the light within to shine through and illuminate.

One sentient being? Universe? Multiverse? Indra's Net from which nothing might escape? *smile*

The cavorting of the mind and heart.

Namaste, guest. Space/Time, an illusion of movement when whatever is is right here,right now. and there is no other space or time, only the moment, this moment, endless and complete.

Nikka

______________________________________

From Cici

1. I am of the nature to grow old. I cannot escape old age.

2. I am of the nature to have ill health. I cannot escape ill health.

3. I am of the nature to die. I cannot escape dying.

4. All that is dear to me and everyone I love are of the nature to change. There is no way to escape being separated from them, I cannot keep anything. I come here empty-handed, and I go empty-handed.

5. My actions are my only true belongings. I cannot escape the consequences of my actions. My actions are the ground on which I stand.

______________________________

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one" -- Albert Einstein.

November 16, 2005
5:43 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests
105sp_Permalink sp_Print

Young & Restless 13-Nov-05 you wrote:

"New question as it relates to Christianity: How can you be so passionately against something that you have such a superficial knowledge of?"

Hmmm. Ending a sentence with a preposition - tich tich. 🙂

Perhaps, I have a much deeper understanding of your religion than you do.

The so-called "passion" if it exists (motivation is a better choice of words) comes from seeing how much damage your religion has done in both my Irish family through the generations in particular and in the world at large in general.

November 19, 2005
9:23 pm
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
106sp_Permalink sp_Print

Thank you for outlining your intentions so clearly. I’ve had the opportunity to think about my own goals and motives as they relate to this debate: What do I truly want to accomplish? Am I exemplifying my religious beliefs? Am I truly listening to the arguments or using sound bites to set landmines and gain control? I won’t share all the results with you, but I realize that I have adjustments to make.

When you posted on the 13th, I felt insulted. When I perceive insult, all listening stops and I seek out ways to insult. I insulted you with my counter posts-and, for that I am sorry. You know, I learn something new about the art of healthy and mature communicating every day, but I still have so much to learn.

I appreciate what I observe as your intensity; I have that as well. It's one of the things that makes discussion with you fun for me. Our discussion has also be challenging, competitive and generally productive. I do believe that we have interesting things to share on the subjects that you mention above: religion, psychology and history…

If I may, I propose that we start small. We might try to tackle one subject/argument at a time. This could help to give each well thought out point all the hang time, and hearing that it deserves. Also, I propose if at any point the discussion ceases to be fun, we stop. Lastly, I propose that we fight fairly-I'll get back to you about the mechanics of this, as I am still learning them myself. Of course, you have the right to decline this proposal as well as this discussion for any reason that you chose. I'll understand.

Were you? Did you just attack my grammer Tez? Are my arguments so sound that you have to go after where I place my prepositions? Just- you-watch it! Keep the attacks focused on my arguments…Assuming that youuuuu can.

November 20, 2005
4:51 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests
107sp_Permalink sp_Print

Did you just attack my grammer Tez?

I did! However, disguised oh so very subtly, was an intended pun. A play on the words preposition/proposition was the not very funny pun - ending your posting with a proposition. I know ... it was weak attempt at humor.

However, in my day at school, those God fearing Christian Brothers would have required nothing so serious as ending one's sentence with a preposition to dish out a flogging.

If you judge a tree by its fruits you don't have to look far to find the sadists, paedophiles, deviates etc embedded and protected within the ranks of those who rule their Christian 'flocks' with the iron fist of emotional blackmail covered by a velvet glove.

I'm tired of hearing that the above miscreants don't represent Christ's teachings. They are the high profile evidence of the lack of power within that message that is represented as being Christ's teachings. When I see the ranks of the leaders of any spiritual belief system permeated, corrupted, harbored and protected by that institution I know that the teachings are ineffectual and thus powerless. When I see people practice what they preach then I will believe that their message has merit. Christ advocated loving thine enemies and turning the other cheek. I see the exact opposite in Christian Leaders both in the past and today. Christian nations are the most warlike on the planet! Stalin studied for the priesthood I believe. Russia was a devoutly Christian nation that suffered terribly under the yoke of Christianity until 'liberated' in 1917. What followed was much worse under Lenin and Stalin. Where was the power in the Christian message for Stalin? The Bush who claims to be a devout Christian and who owes his political power to the bible belt in the US amply demonstrates the hypocrisy of Christian leaders and their inability to see it to boot.

Now back to your rules. I'm not the slightest bit interested in arguing over which biblical quote in which version of the bible is more or less accurate a representation of the supposed word of your Christian God than some other. In my opinion none of it is the word of any god. It is an accumulation of writings of many scribes over many centuries that reflect the beliefs of those Hebrew tribes in each respective era in which each book was written. Even the new testament is the writings of an offshoot sect of Judaism called Christianity and as such is an extension of Judaism. I find the Book of Genesis and many others methaphorical at best and naive mythology at worst. Yet Christians cling to the belief in the fundamental verbatim accuracy that is guaranteed by the so called divine inspiration of the scribes.

After all that if you still want to continue with the discussion I suggest we just look at the fundamental logical flaws in Christian beliefs.

Lets look at the three attributes of your Christian God in the light of the existing world principle of all being alternatively predator and predated upon to survive and many other indisputable facts that decry the argument for the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, unconditionally loving God.

November 25, 2005
8:09 pm
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
108sp_Permalink sp_Print

Tez,

What the teacher brothers did to you seems no less than child abuse and no child deserves that. In order to say that those (or any) miscreants, who identify themselves as Christians, represent Christ’s teachings, you’d have to first show that Christ himself is a miscreant. Or that he educates and advocates miscreant behaviors. Otherwise, I think it’s like saying a parrot who calls himself a judge represents the Judicial Branch of American Government. Read what Jesus says about miscreants who identify themselves as Christians: *Not everyone who says unto me “Lord, Lord” will enter unto the Kingdom of Heaven. *Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves…You shall know them by their fruits. It’s exactly like you said above; one has to judge the fruit to determine from which tree it falls.

Turns out that Stalin forfeited his priesthood education to service the insurgency efforts in Russia. You know, I do wonder what might be historically different had Stalin advanced in his priestly studies. Perhaps he wouldn’t have feared higher education and intellectually based profession as things to be extinguished, due to their counterrevolutionary presence. There is a positive correlation between education and tolerance. Secondly, if Stalin had gone just a little further in his priestly studies, perhaps he would have taken the Soviet Union to the position of world superpower, minus the egregious disregard for human life.
Those will forever remain things to ponder I suppose.

Onward to the question: Let’s look at the three attributes of your Christian God in light of the existing world principle of all being alternatively predator and predated upon to survive and many other indisputable facts that decry the argument for the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, loving God.

Use of the term 'all' here is a sweeping generalization. I don’t believe that world principle has turned us all into forces of destruction and/or cogs in the great destruction machine. I believe that there exists a middle ground between these two extremes. In the middle, is where you can find life’s good Samaritans-the people who help both sides understand that there a more humanly beneficial way. However, Since world principle does seem to encourage predator and/or prey like behavior your question carries real weight.

I can tell you that the existing world principle is not God’s design. God created an environment of perfection and beauty for man-his most perfect creation-to inhabit. There was no physical death, no sorrow, no pain, no thorns, no thistles, and no sweat required to bring about a harvest. Man had physical access to his creator. God designed man to be a free thinking; choice making vastly individual being. With his gift of choice, man chose to disobey God’s direct instructions. With the disobedience of man, came sin and death into the world. (Jesus metaphorically describes sin as darkness, blindness and being in bondage). Once this destructive element entered humanity and the world, the world principle drastically changed from that of perfection to its current state.

On The All Knowingness of God: The Bible says that the eyes of the lord run to and fro across the whole earth, to show himself strong in the behalf of those whose hearts are perfect toward him. People who study Bible prophecy-God’s news-show how some of our headliner news was foretold some thousands of years ago through the inspiration of God. God is fully aware of the state of the world and the existing world principle. Not only that, but he sees our beginning, our present, and our end consecutively. As opposed to changing the world principle by forcing our individual and/or collective hand to meet his perfect standards (thus, confiscating our greatest gift, the freedom of choice) he works within the world to offer himself and redemption freely to all who chose. Does God have the power to intervene and remove evil from the planet? Yes! But be careful what you wish for. We grade sin on a curve because we’re born with a proclivity towards it which clouds our judgement. Contrarily, He is a holy and just and without sin. He says ALL sin stinks in his nostrils. If he chose to snuff out the murders and pedophiles today, why should he stop there? When eradicating what you consider the world principle and what he considers sin, what should stop him from snuffing out all sin: thievery, adulterers, liars, those disrespectgul to their parents, those who are covetous, bearers of false witness, and so fourth? There would be no one left because the reality is we’ve all sinned and come short of the glory of God. Thankfully, he extends to us his amazing grace and mercy and an ear to hear.

On the All Lovingness of God: He says so much about love…He says I have loved you with an everlasting love! He says he (intimately) knew us before we knew the wombs of our mothers. He says that nothing, NOTHING could separate us from his love. Here’s how Jesus measured love: He said there is no greater love than a man who would lie down his life for a friend. Then he went on to do just that…we were the friends. He committed the ultimate act of love when he broke into time and space, wrapped himself in a coat of flesh, was born of a woman, lived the human experience, gave up his life in a way reserved for nefarious criminals… conquered death, then resurrected with all power in his hands. His powerful, innocent blood, atoned for our sins and disobedience toward him so that we would not perish. He says be not deceived, God is not mocked, whatsoever a man sows that shall he also reap. If he were merely a fair God, in light of his immutable laws of morality, we would sew the wages of sin, which is death. But, he is beyond fair, he’s loving. He says it’s not his will that even one of us should perish, but that we might have life eternally. He also says that he’s touched by the feelings of our infirmities. This means that in times of weakness, despair, limitation…He feel what we feel, because he’s our high priest who loves us. At one point in my Christian walk, I thought I felt the love of God in my own life only when I get things just sot. As I read my Bible, and heard his voice, I learned that even when I blow it…big time, he loves me still. He says, Y&R, if you’re feeling condemned, it’s not from me, because there’s no condemnation in Christ. Ask any believer about the love of God… It’s there, it’s everywhere!

On the All Powerfulness of God: Christianity has but one leader; In three person! All the rest of us are servants. If you’re watching the “leaders” of this or any institution for error and inefficiency, you’ll eventually find it. The only problem with measuring power in this limited way is that you will miss all the wonderful displays that come in over the radar. What I know about the power of God is that some 2000 years ago, faith in Jesus did such powerful things as healed the afflicted, personified God’s word, gave hope, joy, and peace that passed all understanding-despite the most trying of circumstance, cleansed, redeemed, and vastly change the hearts and lives and minds of all those who came into relationship with him. What I can bear witness to about the power of God today, is that faith in Jesus still heals affliction, personifies the word of God, gives hope, joy, and a peace that passes all understanding, despite the most trying of circumstance, cleanses, redeems, and vastly changes the hearts, minds and lives of all who comes into relationship with him.

November 25, 2005
9:40 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests
109sp_Permalink sp_Print

Young & Restless.

On the 25-Nov-05 you said:

"Use of the term 'all' here is a sweeping generalization. ... a middle ground between these two extremes. In the middle, is where you can find life’s good Samaritans-... ... However, Since world principle does seem to encourage predator and/or prey like behavior your question carries real weight."

I don't really think that this is a "sweeping generalisation". Every time we, samaritan or otherwise, sit down to a meal we either, knowingly or otherwise, predate upon something. This isn't obvious in certain circumstances. A vegetarian for example may think that he or she is not predating on anything. However, in supplying the vegetarian food, farmers have killed insects, rodents and weeds by various means to protect their crop. If you drive a car, get in a bus, or even ride a push bike, the environmental damage done in the manufacturing and operating processes have caused and cause environmental damage that results in destruction of species wholesale. Land clearing for farms is a predatory act in itself. Thus by creating the demand for even vegetarian food we are guilty by association in the predatory process. Everything is networked in a way that all is either predating upon or is being predated upon. Even weeds compete with and predate upon other plant species in their fight for survival. Viruses and bacteria in turn predate upon us. The Avian Flu is yet another example of our latest predator that has the potential to become a pandemic.

Name one living thing that doesn't predate upon anything to survive.

I'll get back to you with a response to the rest later.

November 25, 2005
10:05 pm
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
110sp_Permalink sp_Print

Tez,

You were taking about preying upon animals? As in, what's for dinner? LOL

I thought for certain that you were talking about the ways that some of us are predators because we are committed to the religion of materialism. Or the ways that some of us are preyed upon, and may parish, due to generationally perpetuated misinformation.

You're alway so deep and multilayered that, I, I just try to stay on my toes...

November 27, 2005
5:15 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests
111sp_Permalink sp_Print

You were taking about preying upon animals? As in, what's for dinner? LOL . Yep!! At all levels!!

Even grass secretes chemicals to kill opposing plant species.

Everything is predating upon something either to eat or to prevent it from eating them or their nutrient source in order to survive.

In turn everything is predated upon. Deserts don't just happen. They are caused. Mankind is the world's most destructive predator. Mankind even predates upon his fellow man. Humanity is destroying the planet. Even lions will kill the cubs propagated by another male in order to perpetuate his own bloodlines. Nature is abundantly cruel and violent.

What sort of a God would create a world in which just to survive one has to predate upon someone or some thing??? The explanation given in Genesis is naive, illogical, mythological and downright childish. To any rational thinking person, it is far from satisfactory. I presented this most basic question to an eminent Catholic theologin: "What does eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil mean?" I was staggered by his response. He said:"It means exactly what it says!"

Hmmmmm! I then realized that the Christian church of any deniomination has no answers at all to the question of "What sort of God... ... ?"

I'm ever so tired of irrational, pat answers that rely on the authority of the bible but explain nothing, yet demand blind faith.

November 27, 2005
5:42 pm
Avatar
exoticflower
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 30, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
112sp_Permalink sp_Print

Oh, boy. I think I was strongly mislead by the thread name!

🙂

Didn't know the conversation hand shifted so far since the last time I peeked here, so sorry! Such witty banter, I suppose it could only go so far with the original topic before it evolved...or was created, what have you! But I wanted to know the general outcome...did anyone ever decide if sexy women are generally unfaithful?

Not to butt in, just a quick curious question.

November 28, 2005
8:07 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests
113sp_Permalink sp_Print

What's your opinion on the consensus issue that you raised about a resolution of the thread's founding question?

November 28, 2005
8:32 pm
Avatar
exoticflower
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 30, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
114sp_Permalink sp_Print

Oh, I left it somewhere at the begining...I don't think we are so bad as some boys would say. I think a lovely ladies every behavior or mistake, including somes infidelities, are twice as heavily scrutinized and widely announced. And suddenly, everyone who has noticed her and had some sort of reaction to her sexiness has an opinion. The guy she wouldn't date suddenly knows for a fact that she was just a terrible person anyway now, the guy she cheated with knows what a sexy woman REALLY wants, the girls that hated her becasue they where jelous can now gloat because she's really not so great, just like they ALWAYS suspected, etc. Which would be fine, but now that there is buzz about this specifically SEXY woman it sets a president for other ones as well. The truth is there are not as many sexy woman out there as other types, and it's easier the fewer of someone there are to be concidered guilty by association. I have had sexy friends who have been unfaithful. I have had very sweet friends who have too. I have also had downright mean friends who have cheated. Some people from every area of life are unfaithful. I do not believe that MOST would be fair though, I think that when a sexy woman is unfaithful it hits more of a nerve and recieves more publicity. Then, people start to make associations.

Now, back to your theology debate. I really did want to know what you had all decided, I guess I'm forced to hit that intimidating "view all posts" tab...nothings easy anymore. *sigh*

November 28, 2005
10:52 pm
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
115sp_Permalink sp_Print

Hey Tez, Hey EF,

I think there are plenty of rationally thinking people who are so convinced that the Book of Genesis is logical and factual that they have devoted their entire lives to revealing the science in creationism.

For instance, Biology, the study of life, has proven that every organism must have a parent or host organism. Right? From the host comes cell structure, which houses a nucleus, which houses chromosomes, which houses genes, which houses DNA-stores encoded heredity- the ever so complex determinant of our bodies, brains and our personalities…well, to an extent (as you know, nature and nurture play equally important rolls in personality).

To my knowledge, there have been no scientific findings to support life evolving (even gradually over time and with small transformations) without the help of a live parent or host. Even efforts to create life by reinventing primordial soup and giving it jolts of electricity have been unsuccessful.

Many rational thinkers believe the reason for this is found in Genesis Chapter 1, Verse 11-12 where God says, "Let everything produce life after its own kind."

Don’t respond right away…

I’d like to finish some reading on the subject and then I’d like to meet with you for another round. I'll be ready!

Thank you for everything this debate has taught me Tez, I mean that from the bottom of my heart.

OH! While I agree wholeheartedly agree that man has cause significant damage to the air, water, land and populace thereof, I find the natural aspects of the ecosystem that you mentioned, far more reciprocal than predatory. Certainly nature has her producers and consumers, but the consumers ultimately become decomposers and when they do, the producers more or less consume them.

Tez, it's the great circle of life!

December 1, 2005
1:48 am
Avatar
Guest
Guests
116sp_Permalink sp_Print

"Many rational thinkers believe the reason for this is found in Genesis Chapter 1 ... "

From purely a scientific perspective, I would have to seriously question their "rationality". They must arbitarily discount all the evidence contrary to their belief in the age of the earth as being around 5000 years old. This smacks of blind faith in an irrational first premise or axiom from which to develop any logical thinking at all.

Even then, if Adam and Eve were the only humans in existence in the beginning, did their children commit incest to produce the human race? What happened to the inbreeding that would have guaranteed imbicility in their descendants? With whom did Cain and Abel copulate? Their sisters?

Who created Satan? God? Why would God knowingly create an 'angel' whom he knew would fall and become Satan. Why would he then free and empower that angel to pervert all humanity? Why would God put temptation in Eve's way? None of this stacks up in a rational way to support the belief in an all powerful, all knowing, unconditionally loving God.

December 1, 2005
2:30 am
Avatar
Guest
Guests
117sp_Permalink sp_Print

"Tez, it's the great circle of life!
"

If all is One and God enjoys suffering then We are that masochistic God in ignorance of our true Self.

Thus there is no 'raper' or 'rapee', perpetrator or victim, predator or predated upon. Then I would agree that "it's the great circle of life!"

However, it is logically irreconcilable that any part of an omniscient God can be in 'ignorance' of itself. Masochism is a mental illness and a human trait, hardly characteristics of an unconditionally loving God.

The Buddha comes closest to a concept that doesn't offend against reason. Yet even the Buddha warned us that his teachings were only true, relative to the perceptions of a deluded mind.

The Buddha strongly stated that even his own teachings would have to be abandoned at the end with the onset of complete enlightenment. Since words are the creation of the severely limited mind, this proposition is highly rational. The Buddha's teachings only illuminate the pathway and point the way - they are not the destination.

This is what I think John Lennon meant when he said: "... I don't believe in the bible ... in Jesus ... in the Buddha ... ". The Buddha would approve of this statement, I believe.

The Buddha said that we should first 'experience' what he taught as being our 'own reality' before we took that reality on board. Thus it would not be the Buddha in which we believe but our own selves and our own ability to ultimately experience a clear, unimpeded vision of that which 'is'.

Jesus Christ implied that need to actual experience what 'is', when he denied being a teacher but a signpost who "tended" to the needs of seekers of truth on their pathway to experiencing truth's "bubbling spring".

In the Gospel according to St. Thomas:

"13 Jesus said to his disciples, "Compare me to something and tell me what I am like."

Simon Peter said to him, "You are like a just messenger."

Matthew said to him, "You are like a wise philosopher."

Thomas said to him, "Teacher, my mouth is utterly unable to say what you are like."

Jesus said, "I am not your teacher. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring that I have tended." "

Euphoria(intoxication) is not uncommon in experiencing samadhi(meditation) states. But the Buddhist masters warn against becoming entrapped in these state by thinking they are the 'destination' rather than only a stage on the journey.

I suspect that there is much more to Jesus Christ and his message than meets the 'bible bound' Christian's eye.

December 1, 2005
2:48 am
Avatar
Worried_Dad
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 43
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
118sp_Permalink sp_Print

Tez,

In case I didn't already say it, I would like to say it before I shuffle off this mortal coil....

I like you, I am fond of you, and I respect your mind. You are strong ginger ale.

December 1, 2005
4:33 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests
119sp_Permalink sp_Print

Thanks WD ..... though I don't respond much to your posts, the feeling is mutual.

December 1, 2005
6:35 pm
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
120sp_Permalink sp_Print

Tez,

There is very interesting information on the contrary evidence, but I need more time before I can present it properly...

I agree! There is more to Christ and his message than can be learned by merely memorizing Bible passages. Christ talks of inviting him into our hearts and getting to know him on a spiritual level. He talks of how the natural man can't comprehend spiritual things....I think we talked about this before.

Your mention of the euphoria of meditation here stands out for me. You talked about a clear visionary experience before, and doubted that I would believe you. I am very interesed to understand what you meant by this. What did you see, hear, feel, learn, understand? What made it such an intoxicating experience?

Please, tell me all about this experience, spare no detail.

December 2, 2005
9:47 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests
121sp_Permalink sp_Print

Young & Restless

On the 1-Dec-05 you said:

"Please, tell me all about this experience, spare no detail."

At the time, I was a member of the a Raja Yoga sect.

I had been completely celibate for some time.

I was in a state of samadhi. The nearest that I can describe the feeling was like being in the peak of an extended orgasm. (ps - I didn't have an erection! 🙂 in case you're wondering.)

Then I saw what I 'somehow' 'knew' was 'absolute reality'. When I came out of the meditative state I could remember nothing whatsoever about the 'Reality' that I 'saw'.

However, I vividly remember to this day that I 'saw' that 'Reality'. I vividly remember my thoughts about that 'Reality', how mind blowingly wonderful and how simple it was.

At the time I was 'struggling' a little with my celibacy. At the time of the 'vision' I remember clearly thinking that I would not swap sex with all the women in the world for the forfeiture of one second of this 'vision' manifest before me in that samadhi state.

Why can I not remember anything about that 'vision'?

I have pondered that question over the years. I think that the 'conditioned' mind has no 'pidgeon holes' in its memory banks for storing such an experience. It does have 'pidgeon holes' for remembering having feelings of ecstacy and having 'conditioned' thoughts and what these thoughts were about.

Thus this was all I was able to bring back. The 'vision' was beyond the capacity of my space-time conditioned mind to 'absorb' and 'remember'.

However, the experience had a profound effect upon my psyche. Since that day, I seem to have a different set of 'references'. When I read something, especially in Buddhist sutras - but not always, that 'something' can 'ring' a powerful bell in the depths of my psyche as being true even though it doesn't make much immediate sense to me intellectually at the time. Subsequent meditation and contemplation often brings the meanings to the fore.

The Gospel of St. Thomas similarly rings bell in many of its lines also. In fact, that gospel is very, very 'Buddhist' in its message. However, the truth is the truth - no one has a monopoly, not even the Buddha or JC, on 'seeing' what 'is'. I now know that it is within all of our capabilities. Buddhism is just the Buddhas recipe for 'How'. Buddhism is not about getting some where or attaining something. It is about 'seeing' what 'really is' in the 'here and now' - not in some 'heaven' after we die. In fact death doesn't exist to a Buddhist. It is a concept of a 'deluded' mind just like mine is at the moment. However I did experience a brief period of clear, unimpeded 'vision' - if I can call it that.

When Christ said "I am that am" I don't think he was talking about some God. I think that we can all say "I am that am".

If you read about the near death experience of Professor John Wren Lewis and his subsequent descriptions of his changed reality in his article called "The Dazzling Dark" you might glimpse what the statement "I am that am" really means.

Do a 'surf' using your browser and the phrase "The Dazzling Dark" (Include the double quotes)

I daren't give you a URL for fear of being seen to be pushing a particular barrow, which I'm not.

I hope this answer to your question doesn't sound evasive - it is both my truth and the best that I can do in describing my experience.

December 5, 2005
9:17 pm
Avatar
Scrumptious
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 30, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
122sp_Permalink sp_Print

Tez -

Since you are the one that asks the question, I really wonder what you mean by a "truly sexy woman."

I know that you have been asked this before. I have read the threads. Your answers seem quite bland.

I once had a friend that was very beautiful to look at. She would have the men salivating at first glance, but she quickly put a stop to this nonsense by introducing herself and stating that she was a neurosurgeon. This would seem that she suddenly lost her "sexiness" because she was intelligent.

Do you think that "truly sexy" is an individualized ideal or do you think there is such a thing as a woman being "truly sexy" to all men?

December 6, 2005
12:57 am
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
123sp_Permalink sp_Print

Hi Tez, Hi Scrumptious,

No Tez. I don’t get the sense that you’re being evasive...

I understand that there are two factors which deter my pursuit for more information here. One, the defining property of a bhava occurrence seems to be experience over articulation-meaning the more transcendent the mental state, the less ability one has to describe it. Two, you spoke of a belief of lacking pidgeon holds for sorting such an experience within the mind… While I can conceive all this intellectually, the subject has such allure for me that I can’t resist asking a final question: Can you tell me anything additionally about the form in which absolute reality chose to visually manifest itself to you; was it a person, place, thing, concept? Did the memory of certain colors or symbols or sounds survive the experience? Take my curiosity as a religious crush. As I fore stated, the subject carries much allure.

Since absolute reality is, well…absolute, I’m curious about what makes ‘is’ so intangible to our individual lenses of subjectivity. Unless of course, subjectivity actually is one of those obscurities you mentioned which clouds the mind and prevents the bliss of seeing.

I gather from your use of ‘was’ that you are no longer a member of this sect of yoga-King of Yoga’s in fact. I’m curious about why you no longer partake since it’s been the means to such enlightening and seemingly beneficial experience.

Yes! I think Lewis’ account fully conveys your meaning of ‘I am that I am’. I think this bolck of text is most indicative of what you describe: “…it has everything to do with a dimension of aliveness here and now which makes the notion of separate survival a very secondary matter, in this world or any other. In fact it makes each present instant so utterly satisfying that even the success or failure of creative activity becomes relatively unimportant. In other words, I’ve been liberated from what William Blake called obsession with “futurity,” which, until it happened, I used to consider a psychological impossibility. And to my continual astonishment, for ten years now this liberation has made the conduct of practical life more rather than less efficient, precisely because time consciousness isn’t overshadowed by “anxious thought for the morrow … Moreover that wonderful “eternal life of everywhere” was still there, right behind my eyes—or more accurately, at the back of my head—continually recreating my whole personal body-mind consciousness afresh, instant by instant, now! and now! and now! That’s no mere metaphor for a vague sensation; it was so palpably real that I put my hand up to probe the back of my skull, half wondering if the doctors had sawn part of it away to open my head to infinity. Yet it wasn’t in the least a feeling of being damaged; it was more like having had a cataract taken off my brain, letting me experience the world and myself properly for the first time—for that lovely dark radiance seemed to reveal the essence of everything as holy.

What I saw was the fascinating account of a qualitative and quantative scientists’ (and skeptic of all things unempirical ) awakening into an altered state of consciousness after a NDE-though Lewis is convinced he actually died and was resuscitated by the medical staff. When Lewis awoke from his recovery and his physical sleep, he slowly realized that he had also awaken from the sleep of his own personal consciousness (though maintaining his identity and memories) into a transformed and/or recreated, dark and pure form of consciousness, which is void of the oppressive constraints time and of space. His new consciousness, in fact, makes him a new creature.

"…Moreover my bewilderment was intensified as I discovered how all kinds of “negative” human experiences became marvels of creation when experienced by the Dazzling Dark.

In addition to illustrating the point of ‘I am that I am’ in a crystal clear way, Lewis’ account of transcendence raises so many questions. For one thing, I can’t determine why Lewis considers this new found awareness a birthright or an entitlement for humanity. It seems that without the compounding outside variables of the medicated candy and a few seconds of physical death he might have entirely missed this awakening. To me, this sounds more like the chance than a birthright. Also, I’d like love to have more detail about how something as supernatural and mystical as eternity consciousness could feel more typical than exceptional…especially since it’s a relatively new experience for him. The funny thing is, to some degree, I understand exactly what he means.
I’m also VERY curious about the growth patter or what I can only describe as a self-educating function of the consciousness, which prepares Lewis for the adjustment gaps between former and present awareness (this sounds like an upgrade of some sort. How cool is this? It’s like the gift that keeps on giving!). I found it difficult to contain my envy when I found that his awareness came without spiritual striving and discipline…this is not simply contrary to my preconceptions, but contrary to my entire value system. And finally, seeing as how the mind commands the body through the nerve systems, I’d like to know about any other physical changes that Lewis might have experience besides his remarkable new understanding of pain and his deep sleep without ever really shutting of awareness.

As I read both yours and Lewis’ account of transcendence side by side, I couldn’t help but to note the similarities. You both claim to have seen the world clearly, for the first time through an altered state of consciousness. You both feel as though your ‘awakenings’ are the not only capable to, but the entitlement of all man. You both received new internal references as a result of the experience. Lewis spoke of a new meaning and understanding of pain, the awareness of beauty in formerly unlikely places, scantificaion of all products of time. I’m curious about your reordered or altered set of references. I know you mentioned the sense of bearing witness to powerful written truths even when pre-elaborate. I'm curious about weather or not the references have ever been physical or natural.

I noted, much to my dismay, that neither of you see your respective experience as grace...Bummer!

Lewis doesn’t see his awakening as a reward for diligence in any way, and would argue that a diligent quest might actually be counterproductive. This is the only major difference I find between the two accounts. Just a cursory examination of the Raja sect of Yoga's goals and offerings seems to demand strivings and diligence and denial.

Thanks for this!

December 7, 2005
3:39 am
Avatar
Guest
Guests
124sp_Permalink sp_Print

Scrumptious

On 5-Dec-05 you said:

"Do you think that "truly sexy" is an individualized ideal ... "

Yes ... I think all men have psychological, visual, auditory, olfactory, tactile 'templates' that they unconsciously compare to the sensory data that they receive and augment in their brains. If there is a template/incoming image match then its ... butterylies in the guts ant stars in the eyes. Orgasms happen in the head.

" ... or do you think there is such a thing as a woman being "truly sexy" to all men?"

Absolutely not. All men's 'templates' no matter how similar they are in my view different.

That's just my opinion.

December 7, 2005
7:40 am
Avatar
Guest
Guests
125sp_Permalink sp_Print

Young & Restless

On 6-Dec-05 you wrote:

"...was it a person, place, thing, concept? "

I'm very sorry but I can only answer that in the negative by saying that what I saw was definitely not a person, place, thing or a concept. I only remember marvelling at both the magnificence and the amazingly elegant and fantastic simplicity of absolute reality.

As I write this I can still see myself having the experience as if I am watching myself meditating in the lotus position by peeking around from behind a giant black wall at myself sitting in meditation looking at what is behind the wall that is obscuring the 'I' that is watching the 'me' have the vision. Of course there was no wall and how could I be split into two. But that's the very best I can do. I very, very vaguely remember brilliant luminescent colours associated with the vision. But they were not like the coloured lights that we see in this world.

You asked:

"I’m curious about what makes ‘is’ so intangible to our individual lenses of subjectivity."

I can only give my opinion on that. If you will excuse my drawing a little on the Buddha's explanation on this issue, I will choose his terminology.

The Buddha taught that everything has both 'form' at one extreme and 'emptineness' at the other.

We are all entranced by the 'form' of mental objects, thoughts, feelings and people, places and things as though they have an absolute existence as real 'objects' separate from and independent of us the observing 'subjects'. I sure that you are familiar with this common concept of duality.

However, since everything is changing with time everything is 'empty' of any permanent characteristic, independent identity. Thus everything including sentient beings have no absolute, permanent, independent 'selfhood' - no 'soul'.

The Buddha maintained that being caught up at either extreme of form or emptiness is to be in the state of deluded vision or wrong views. He claims that everything has both emptiness and form. Seeing clearly with both of the mind's eyes on each extreme and what lies between simultaneously 'as it were' is to see the true 'self' - that which 'is'.

Of course I cannot do that in my 'normal' state of fixation on 'form'; that is the three dimensional world of space combined with the forth dimension of time. Even this four dimensional world only exists in my deluded, fixated, mesmerized mind. What is 'outside' of me is NOT what I think I see. This is why the vision was intangible to my normal fixated mind and its four dimensional memory - I believe.

I believe that my mind's momentary 'vision' that was beyond the space-time continuum altogether, for whatever reason, fell somewhere between these two extremes of fixation on either form or emptiness. The surface of the lake momentarily cleared itself of fallen leaves before recovering the lake again.

You asked:

"I’m curious about why you no longer partake since it’s been the means to such enlightening and seemingly beneficial experience."

Enlightenment is not something that happens once and then is permanent for ever. We all get flashes of it without realizing it, I'm told. I got a slightly extended experience through my meditation practice not through the Raja Yoga doctrine which I now outright reject. I still use some of their techniques but not their visualizations.

Even though Ch'an Buddhist masters say that enlightenment can come with the click of the fingers, this is hardly the norm. They say that most require many life times. What I had is not unusual I'm told. My genuine celibacy, as opposed to self-imposed voluntary absense of sex, had a lot to do with my ability to have that vision .

Sexual attraction is a powerful fixation on 'form' of the body and the 'personality',that is mental forms etc of the partner of the opposite sex if you are heterosexual and same sex if you're not.

Celibacy is not essential but it sure helps. Tantric sex supposedly aids in having this experience. But if you seek the experience it is a hinderance. But I have been warned by the masters that Tantric sex is only for very advanced practitioners. It apparently is very destructive when practiced by novices. I am a novice, I assure you. I would have nothing to do with tantric sex personally.

And you said:

"For one thing, I can’t determine why Lewis considers this new found awareness a birthright or an entitlement for humanity."

The answer to that is because it is our true selves unto which we need to awaken from this dream like state of being that we know as normal consciousness. The Buddha said that we are all Buddha's; we just don't know it or see it. It is our birthright. But it is up to us to open our eyes and look at what is. No one, no Holy Ghost dispensing 'grace' can do it for us.

"Also, I’d like love to have more detail about how something as supernatural and mystical as eternity consciousness could feel more typical than exceptional…especially since it’s a relatively new experience for him."

Since his new found consciousness has always been his natural state, it seems so right to him. In fact his pre-poisoning state, not being his natural state of cunsciousness, now seems so foreign to him, though he still functions in the 'normal' world of 'form' as did the Buddha. John Wren Lewis is (was) not a fully enlightened awakened Buddha. He certainly experiences an enlightened vision of reality though.

I observed one thing though. Prof. John Wren Lewis was writing a book called the '9.10 to Nirvana'. It was never published. I presume he got tired of trying to 'describe the indescribable'.

I suspect that you want to " have more detail about how something as supernatural and mystical as eternity" can be translated into the realm of 'form' so that you can use your present state of 'form' consciousness to examine it.

That is like saying that you want to see what a bee sees with its very complex segmented eyes only using your human eyes. It can never be - no pun intended.

Could you grasp a full vision of the boundarilessness of outer space? Of infinity? No - because our mind has been conditioned by the 'normal' limits of the three dimensions of height, width, and length of objects versus time as the independent variable as defined by our sense organs. These are the delusory dimensions of 'form'.
In fact 'length' is a mental object with no reality in the real world.

"I'm curious about whether or not the references have ever been physical or natural."

I can only say that before the experience I had no internal references at all to judge the validity or otherwise of someone elses writings. I needed to refer to 'experts' like Jung, Rogers, Frankl, Maslow, Beck, Poppa, Tiellard De Chardin, you name the authority religious, scientific or otherwise.

I held people of high academic learning in great esteem. I thought the mystics were way up there. Now, I don't. I don't feel superior to anyone either! It is though I have been grounded in some way such that I only need to turn within for answers. It never fails me. I am not special - we all have these powers. The Buddha keeps telling us this over and over but we will not listen!! I still lose it every so often and rant and rave. Only now I don't flog myself over it I just move on.

And you said:

"I noted, much to my dismay, that neither of you see your respective experience as grace...Bummer!"

Lewis was an athiest or an agnostic before his experience - I think. I don't know what he categorizes himself as now if he does at all. So it is not surprizing that he doesn't attribute his experiences to grace. I personally don't believe in the concept of 'grace' as a gift from some deity albeit from some Holy Spirit manifestation of some God.

I don't believe in the concept of a personal, anthropomorphic God who created the world ahd who is totally separate from us. I suspect that the Buddhist have it right with their concept of the Tathagata. We are the Tathagata in ignorance of our true nature.

There are no words to describe the Tathagata. It is my belief that this is what I saw. Sadly, unlike John Wren Lewis, I reverted to my previous level of consciousness - he did not.

It is my belief that a part of John Wren Lewis's brain was damaged to the extent that his conscious awareness is not being constantly 'pulled' down into the obsessive monitoring of his physical state of wellbeing demanded by the mind's preoccupation with preservation of this delusory selfhood of our form and the 'I' who supposedly owns it.

In very deep meditation this same state of disconnectedness can achieve the same thing as I proved to myself.

Do I obsess over getting back into that state? NO - if I did, I couldn't stay there nor could I bring it back. I have the point of reference now and that is all that I need.

If you want to seek the same experiences then I suggest you become a Chan or Zen Buddhist. But I suspect that you will lose the urge to attain that state very quickly if you do. The Chan Buddhist Monks and nuns heard my story with mild amusement, just as a modern day 21st century scientist would listening to a utterances of a 17th century scientist recounting his laboratory research findings.

"Lewis doesn’t see his awakening as a reward for diligence in any way, and would argue that a diligent quest might actually be counterproductive. This is the only major difference I find between the two accounts. Just a cursory examination of the Raja sect of Yoga's goals and offerings seems to demand strivings and diligence and denial. "

I totally agree with Lewis. Diligently seeking for enlightenment is a form of grasping for the benefit of some 'self' as a way out of suffering. It is counterproductive in that it further reinforces the further conditioning of the mind regarding the delusion that the 'self' exists as a permanent, separate being that can permanently attain something, albeit 'enlightenment'.

In the Diamond Sutra the deciple of the Buddha, Subhuti, said: "World-honored One, is it not so that when the Buddha attained complete enlightenment nothing was really attained?"

The Buddha replied: "Just so, just so. Subhuti, there is not even the slightest dharma that can be attained in highest complete enlightenment, and this is what called highest complete enlightenment."

Thinking that there is some 'one' who can attain highest complete enlightenment is in itself an indication of delusional thinking that is convinced that a permanent 'self' exists as a separate being who can attain and permanently hold onto a 'something', albeit a state of mind called enlightenment.

Someone asked the Buddha whether he would exist after he attained highest complete enlightenment and passed from this earth when he attained parinirvana. He replied that he both would and would not exits. My understanding of this at an extremely low level is that: the Tathagata would exist but there would be no entity that identified itself as being a self called Sakyamuni Buddha.

Imagine if you can, seeing the world and the inner workings of your psyche without any reference to or any unconscious or conscious awareness of a self who is doing the 'seeing'. Can you do that? That is what I think John Wren Lewis has inadvertently experienced. I think it is what I also experienced albeit for a much shorter time. I'm not sure John Wren Lewis is still alive. He is(was) an Aussie. I should try to contact him I suppose. But to what end? What more could he tell me than he already has?

We all need is to 'walk the walk 'ourselves. We are the Tathagata already - for what more can we want?? We only have to look!

Forum Timezone: UTC -8
Most Users Ever Online: 247
Currently Online:
33
Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
onedaythiswillpass: 1134
zarathustra: 562
StronginHim77: 453
free: 433
2013ways: 431
curious64: 408
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 49
Members: 110935
Moderators: 5
Admins: 3
Forum Stats:
Groups: 8
Forums: 74
Topics: 38543
Posts: 714223
Newest Members:
jessicawales, documentsonline, SafeWork, thomasalina, genericsmartdrugs, 才艺
Moderators: arochaIB: 1, devadmin: 9, Tincho: 0, Donn Gruta: 0, Germain Palacios: 0
Administrators: admin: 21, ShiningLight: 572, emily430: 29

Copyright © 2019 MH Sub I, LLC. All rights reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Policy | Health Disclaimer